I don't know if it is on line somewhere, but someone should check Miles O'Brien's segment on American Morning about Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize for Peace. What is the theme? Al Gore is more popular in Europe than in the U.S., just like Jerry Lewis! CNN then illustrates this profound point by showing a particularly moronic segment of The Nutty Professor. For you young people out there, this was a 1963 comedy (released just a few months, believe it or not, before Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove), about a science professor who drinks a potion to make himself handsome. I don't have time to search the archives of Cahiers du Cinema right now, but French film intellectuals reportedly found depths of irony in le Jerry that escaped Americans....

Just like Al Gore!

CNN cut to a segment with some discredited global warming skeptic (i.e. flat earther) for balance. American Morning played a quote of one of its own reporters claiming that Nobel Peace Prizes are political. Miles O'Brien reported from Oslo that Nordics love nothing more than Bush-bashing, and that approval of Bush is only 10-12 percent in Norway! He doesn't mention that it is currently hovering at 24 percent in the U.S. and falling.

Just to add to their attempt to be "fair and balanced," CNN adds (with no evidence whatever) that this is the prize that Bill Clinton would have liked to win for his Middle East peace efforts, but that instead it went to his Vice President. Who was "defeated" seven years ago by George W. Bush.

And there's more. Apparently, according to Miles O'Brien, as many as 90 percent of those credulous, Bush-bashing Europeans actually have confidence in the findings of science!!! As compared to a mere 50 percent of Americans, who apparently are wisely skeptical

There was more too, but I was too stunned to take notes. I never saw The Nutty Professor. But I did see Dr. Strangelove. In fact I saw it on my first date with the woman who is now my wife. Perhaps if CNN had existed in 1964 it would have illustrated a segment on the danger of nuclear war with an interview with General Jack D. Ripper arguing that the Soviet Union was trying to pollute our "precious bodily fluids" and balanced it with an interview with some "scientist."

Somebody should find the transcript and go over it line by line. Incredible.

29 comments:

This CNN segment was nothing short of bizarre. On the very day Gore and the UN Climate Panel are awarded the Prize, CNN comes out of the closet (as it were) and compares Gore's efforts to those of Jerry Lewis in a long-forgotton comedy about a nutty professor. Just surreal. Have the CNN news editors themselves gone nutty?

I’m too lazy to go read a CNN transcript. But, I have a personal story that pretty much adds to the nature of your experience.

A few years ago, I bought, renovated and sold an old house so that I could make a few bucks while organizing people for some sort of social action. During those nine months, I did not have a TV, but after I finished, I rented a place that had had one.

I’ll tell you what, after abstaining for those months, it was a shock to tune into CNN and see the Wolf-Man whoop it up for the war. Even though I was tired, I did not have to try hard to do fact checks that destroyed his credibility for me. But, it was the tone and drama of their advocacy that was such a shock.

Then, I tuned-in to watch Charles Barkley. He leads the pack of sports casters that have more insight and knowledge about human dynamics and ethical issues than any newscaster that I could find. Really, that’s true.

It wasn't easy, but I found the transcripts link on CNN.com -- the show is there, but not all the segments are transcribed (yet). The page says to check back later, they'll be adding transcriptions. Wonder if they'll avoid doing this one:

And the sad thing of it all is that so many people think that CNN is the more reliable and fair and balanced of the many news outlets out there.. of course the root of the comparison lying that it is not as bad as Fox news, the only other serious contender..

Safrang - I would add BBC to the list, and remove Fox. That is, I think only CNN and BBC are in a position to claim the type of objectivity that an international news organization demands. Obviously pieces like the one defining this thread undermine CNN's objectivity. CNN is, of course, US-based (Atlanta) and this may influence their ability to provide objective reporting as well (i.e., by pandering to their US audience as they perceive it).

I can't believe intelligent people watch any news source on television in the US. Just look at CNN, they have a special version "CNN International", any serious viewer outside of the US would laugh at the American version of CNN. So they have "CNN International" for viewers accustomed to intelligent news shows. Once you listen to Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" and other Pacifica Radio shows, it's clear mainstream media (including Public Broadcasting) are children shows. So to read that Barnett Rubin was watching American Morning is a shock, Why would he be wasting his time watching that dribble?

To Anthony - Two reasons: One is that "intelligent people" may not want to catch themselves in a "news bubble", in which information is constantly filtered through a chosen lens. Second, there is simply no other way to know what the majority of humanity is seeing as "news" other than watching TV news, as the other major sources - the web and the print media - are still relatively small. If I am wrong about this (and I may be) please correct me. I am most thankful that Barnett has watched the segment and posted his comment.

Call for Papers

We seek submission of guest opinion pieces, from academic specialists, on urgent issues of the day in global affairs. We especially encourage submissions from anthropologists, historians, sociologists, and those in other disciplines who have expertise but do not often speak on current events. The best such pieces are typically 800 to 1000 words, with one central point to make. Some good tips are here, with part two being here. Some other good advice is here. Op-eds will be carefully considered but the editor reserves the right to decline them and may not have time to give detailed responses. Submissions to .